AADHIKARonline Tuesday 27 June 2006



AADHIKARonline Editor© Muhammad Haque London Tuesday 27 June2006

AADHIKARonline

AADHIKAR MEDIA FOUNDATON, London, UK. Publishing these editions in London in association with Khoodeelaar! the Brick Lane and Whitechapel London E1 Area campaign against the CrossRail hole Bill [The ‘CrossRail Bill’ in the UK House of Commons as at Monday 26 June2006]

The 9th Edition 1520 Hrs GMT / 1620 Hrs UK Tuesday 27 June2006

Editor in Chief
Muhammad Haque
E-mail AADHIKARonline HERE

AADHIKARonline and KHOODEELAAR! Legal disclaimer updated at 1330 Hrs GMT on Thursday 22 June 2006

---

What I had started to say to George Galloway on 4 May 2006 to do if his candidates got into Tower Hamlets Council, was left unstated in the main.
That could only have been caused by a very Blairist, amoral and irresponsible interference with the due process of democratic discourse and communication. That Blairist interference must have been located to my back. It had targeted its impact on George Galloway’s attention...

By Muhammad Haque – continuing the report on Galloway’s RESPECT group of councillors on Tower Hamlets Council – Part 3

Midway into my question to him George made a sudden decision to move off.
On turning to my back, I could see a possible source of strategically issued technical prompt that might have caused George to make a fast movement away from the scene.
Had I been able to complete the question and had George been in less of a hurry, I would have advised him to not repeat the error of Tom McNulty.
McNulty had squandered the question that would have saved the East End – and the rest of the inner cities – a great deal of social grief.
What this refers to is that when any group of party is given any electoral opportunity by the voters, it is given the one opportunity to prove to the voters that it [the grouping] deserved the ‘confidence’

Time after time over the past five years in particular, Blair has been told this by people in the period since he colluded with Bush and his Neo Conservatives to attack and occupy Iraq.
Mcnulty was being given platforms formal and informal, in locations within Tower Hamlets around the time.
One such platform was given him by the pliant, time-serving anti-social Blairist careerists controlling the anti-democratic, unrepresentative and thoroughly corrupted General Management committee [GMC] of Bethnal Green and Bow Constituency Labour Party [CLP]
McNulty was paraded as a speaker of such substance that most of us present in the room, were expected to suffer his spiels and then perhaps put questions.
Although I managed to put my hand up and asked the question fairly early on, McNulty did not attempt even an acknowledgment of the question until towards the every end and when he did, he came across as vacuous, misleading, irrelevant as he always had been throughout his little career in ‘government'.
He did not understand the question And nor did he want to. His prejudice, his ignorance, his antipathy towards learning and recognising the truth about society and the people and his sheer discomfiture with democratic debate is what typifies Blair’s ‘place men’ and place women.
McNulty said to my question, ‘that is not right’. Did he mean my question was not right or did he mean my premiss was not right? Or did he, perhaps, agree with me that Blair’s squandering of the people’s ‘trust’ was not right!
Fat chance of the latter being the case.
McNulty has a track record of mouthing vacuities as long as his life’s ambitions
What McNulty must have meant was that my question and its premiss were not right!
Of course he did. And the ‘MP’ who was sitting next to him, giggling and whispering into the ear of the ‘chair’ token of the event, a Josh Peck, was herself exposed later as being the first casualty of the ignorant regime of Tony Blair.
We have Josh Peck now lining himself up as a newly elected Blairist councillor on Tower Hamlets Council pretending to lead that Council.
So, what is the chance that Galloway’s RESPECT councillors will make it democratically hard for the likes of the same Josh Peck to get to be leader of the Council? I say there is little chance. Unless they and George Galloway take this advice: do not squander the trust of the electors and of the community.
I myself have not voted at the 4 May 2006 elections. As I had said I would not do. I said that there were not any fit candidates to deserve my vote.
Can Galloway show me that he has councillors whose conduct is so different from what I am reporting it to have been , that even I would be susceptible to objective conceptual invitations to rationally review my views and comments about them? .

For George Galloway, the time is fast running out. I refer to him as the leader of the RESPECT party which has 12 Councillors on Tower Hamlets Council at the time of writing.


What do they stand for, apart from on slogan-linked issues which only become noticeable because people from the public galleries are or were, present to make noise about? .

What are Galloway’s councillors doing as councillors by using the democratic mandate so far as their own wards and their own elections are concerned?

To be continued

---

From the previous editions as published on 27 June 2006

Khoodeelaar! question to George Galloway’s RESPECT councillors on Tower Hamlets Council, at the 'news conference' on Monday 26 June 2006

By Muhammad Haque 1250 Hrs GMT London Tuesday 27 June 2006

How critically dysfunctioning is the Tower Hamlets Council today?
I think it is in serious state of disrepair and the community in the East End borough cannot afford to let an ailing council jeopardise even further the rights of the people that are under serious Big Business and multinational and globalising interests’ robbery programme targeting the borough for destruction, disenfranchisement and then takeover.
All of which elements are present in the Crossrail onslaught currently underway.
I did not ask any question about Crossrail, because the RESPECT party has no active agenda against Crossrail. Not if their web site is anything to go by. Not if their election publicity materials distributed over the two months prior to the 4 May 2006 local council elections and in the [nearly] two months since that day are anything to go by.
In fact, as I have been recording, the only RESPECT party holder of political office from any part of Tower Hamlets who has been actually making any mentionable reference to the Crossrail problem is George Galloway himself.

My question as put to Abjol Miah, the leader of the RESPECT group of councillors on Tower HAMLETS Council, was put just about the middle of the meeting held in their group office in the Mulberry Place.
I asked the question about their letter of pleas as addressed to Ruth Kelly > The question as a whole was about their joint letter dated 23 June 2006 that had apparently been also signed by the Lib Dems group leader and the Conservative group leader on Tower Hamlets Council

The letter was apparently about the new Tower Hamlets Council being in 'breach of its Constitution and is failing in its duty to local people'.
That letter ended with the following plea, which was what struck me as being very odd and seriously off target. It read, "We would welcome your comments and suggestions on action to redress the anti democratic conduct of Tower Hamlets Council business”.

That is very odd.
No group of leaders of opposition on an allegedly properly elected local council – which Tower Hamlets Council is not yet capable of being described as without this qualification because of the rampant corruption that overhangs its ‘constitutional existence’- should be seen to be depending on a UK Blair cabinet minister of Ruth Kelly’s evident record and manifest failure, to do anything for 'democracy' on that totally hopeless council. What is more, Ruth Kelly is herself completely in the political pocket of the most corrupt administration in the UK that has been in office centrally for a very long time.
And finally, Ruth Kelly's living in the borough of Tower Hamlets, for as long as she had done to the date of the reference, had made her even less likely to intervene than it would have done had she not been a prisoner of her own political opportunism, immaturity, ignorance and banality.

My question to the RESPECT councillors referred to the last paragraph in their letter to Ruth Kelly and asked, “What does it mean?
IT surely is being left to Ruth Kelly to give what is most likely on the record of her behaviour a condescending response?
Why didn’t you demand a political action in accordance with existing constitutional framework?
Which is for example --- to make the Council comply with its own constitutional obligations, to include all the councillors in being seen to be taking part in making decisions for the Council and representing their communities. In asking for compliance with the Representation of the Peoples Act, which lays down the real constitutional obligations as to what councillors are there for, and this sabotage of the Council by Christine Gilbert and her band of bureaucrats is illegal.
And why isn’t legal action being taken against her at this stage?”

To be continued


From the previous editions as published on Tuesday 27 June 2006

KHOODEELAAR! URGENT LEGAL ANNOUNCEMENT 0600 HRS GMT TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2006

KHOODEELAAR! THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST CROSSRAIL HOLE IN BRICK LANE AND WHITECHAPEL LONDON E1 AREA does not have any private links with any political party, grouping or any of their agents, contractors or fixers or similar. Any person making any contact with anyone, claiming to be speaking for khoodeelaar! Must be doing so as an impersonation or as an act of illegality. All communication for the attention of khoodeelaar! Must be addressed in the first instance to the published legal email address for khoodeelaar!.
That address is
lawmedia@hotmail.com

no person, other than the khoodeelaar! Organiser, is authorised to make any statement in the name of khoodeelaar except with the express and written permission of the campaign organiser! Nor are they entitled to seek any information or any material or substance in the name of the khoodeelaar! Campaign. Khoodeelaar! Does not seek to make any links with any grouping in return for any favours, agreement or consent. The khoodeelaar! Campaign exists solely on the merit and the contents of the arguments and on the honest and genuine support of all the members of the community regardless of party political or any similar affiliations. Khoodeelaar! Campaign is very aware of the presence in the area of operatives who might be spying on the community. We are not responsible for any activities of any agents or touts for Crossrail or of their touting tower hamlets council or of the other holders of public office who may assume that they can misdescribe our community and sabotage the KHOODEELAAR! Campaign against Crossrail.
This notice also applies to certain ‘members’ or ‘leaders’ of certain political grouping who may be getting a bit too ambitious in their schemes around the possibility that they may have ‘successfully’ planted some of their operatives in the community to pose as opponents of the Crossrail hole assault on our community.

Coming here shortly – Part 2

KHOODEELAAR! analysis of Tower Hamlets ‘RESPECT’ councillors

From the last edition:

Breaking news

1850 Hrs GMT Monday 26 June 2006

Khoodeelaaronline question to George Galloway’s RESPECT group of Tower Hamlets Councillors on Monday 26 June 2006: Why have you not taken legal action against Christine Gilbert based on her illegal actions, her misconduct and her openly illegal barriers and obstructions to democratic functioning of the Council?

This question was part of a number put to the RESPECT group of councillors at their ‘news conference’ held in the Tower Hamlets Town Hall at 5 PM today.

The question was not answered in full. That is understandable. But a number of similar questions arose at the news conference. |They were not answered. Some Khoodeelaar! supporters and campaign members present at the event said that the RESPECT Group of councillors were finding their feet. Their hearts are in the right place. And as the group leader Abjol Miah said, they were trying to get to grips with so many issues that affect the community, issues that the Council bauar5aecary was thwarting cou7cnillors from attending to that it was already proving to be serious concern. WE want your support. We want the community to work with us. We want the campaigning groups to work with us. Said Abjol Miah. His colleague Oliur Rahman said that their doors were open and people would be most welcome to contact them and let them know what the community wanted them to do. Waisul Islam said that there had been a grave disservice done to the community by the ruling group selling off the Cheviot Hosue. His colleague, a fellow Councillor for Whitechapel ward Shahed Ali gave a detailed description of how successive councillors on the ruling group reneged on their own promises to consult with the local community before making a decision to sell off Cheviot Hosue. They catalogued the behaviour of councillor Denise Jones in suppressing democracy on Tower Hamlets Council. The statements reinforced the question: How is it that nearly two months following the 4 May 2006 elections, TWELVE RESPECT councillors have not called an extraordinary meeting of the Council, they have not signed a request for emergency session of the council or its committees to stop the Crossrail hole, to stop Council sell off,. To stop the Cheviot House sell off A detailed KHOODEELAARonline report on Tower Hamlets Council RESPECT group of councillors starts here shortly

---

Khoodeelaar! No to CrossRail hole plan project scheme Bill – Legal action details on the liabilities of Christine Gilbert and five controlling clique councillors in post during May 2002 to 4 May 2006 – Further updates on the grounds

By Muhammad Haque

One of the most serious claims against Christine Gilbert has been that she has lied. She has lied for CrossRail hole assault on the community and that she has lied at every single opportunity. The claims against her are also applicable to the claims against Owen Whalley, who has lied for Crossrail.
And the claims against the councillors concerned revolve in the main around the fact that they too lied for CrossRail.
The Khoodeelaar! campaign against the corrupt clique on Tower Hamlets Council has been made inevitable by the absence of any accountability system on the Council. That has allowed the leis to be conceived and perpetrated.
The vacuum that prevailed on Tower Hamlets Council between the local council elections of May 2002 and the local council elections of 4 May 2006, has remained the same.
And if the 'debate' [!!!!] of 21 June 2006 when the formal full council meeting took place for the first time in the 'new' council, is anything to go by, there is scant chance that the vacuum will be filled by any substance, by any emergence of any significant, notable factor that will alter the status quo. This is why Khoodeelaar! is proceeding with what is bound to become a very comprehensive and extremely detailed set of legal action programme initiated by any comparable campaigning group against any local council in the UK.
Many of our correspondents and enquirers have asked us to explain the legal actions that we have been announcing and updating about over the past 30 months.
The simple answer is that the actions will be colossally complex . For that reason, by definition, the actual commencement of actions has been long time in coming. Once the first claims are actually filed in court/s, the heavy-duty legal work that they entail will follow. By definition, the claims will raise issues and bring out facts and cause work that simply are not associated with ordinary court cases. In depth, in complexity and in range.
We are poised to embark on an unprecedented series of actions that will focus attention on the reality of the UK constitution. For our programme of legal actions also includes actions against the Secretary of State for Transport and against the mayor of London.
The access to resources that those have is self evidently bigger than any resources that may be available to Khoodeelaar! campaign against Crossrail . .
Within ‘the system’ of ‘democracy’ in the UK, we the community targeted for Crossrail hole assault in the East End of London have no alternative but to seek the services or the interventions of the internal UK court system.
And after that engagement, we have to resort to the available court system in the European constitutional context. Why ?
Because the existing 'constitutional facilities' are not delivering the due democracy to the people, the due protection from the excessive abuse of power by those who have been placed in power over us, in our name.
The main purpose is to stop the Crossrail assault plan on the East End of London. And the best way we can hope to complete the achievement of our campaign aim is by making the CrossRail issue as big and as widely known and as widely scrutinised as the involvement of the mainstream court system can enable the matter to be.

We also aim to examine the operation of what is supposedly the British constitution.

What is it there for – if it is ‘out there' somewhere, at all ! .



Is it there to defend the people against the holders of power?
Is it there to protect the communities against Big Business touts, crooks and conglomerates? .

One of the key aims of the Khoodeelaar! court actions against Christine Gilbert and against the CrossRail hole plan Minsiter and assorted promoters of the Crossrail assault plan is to bring out the facts and the evidence of the collusion by all concerned in IMPOSING the Crossrail hole attack on the East End… How the councillors lied, how Christine Gilbert lied, How London mayor Ken Livingstone lied, how the Secretary of State lied, how the City of London pluggers lied, how the Construction conglomerates and engineering contract brokers and pluggers lied….”

[This written and filed from London at 1145 Hrs GMT Monday 26 June 2006]


[To be continued]






From the previous editions, as published on Sunday 25 June 2006

Khoodeelaar! Legal action against councillors and Council employees who have backed the Crossrail hole plot against the Community – updated summary of evidence and grounds for the legal claims that are being commenced in the very near future. Sunday 26 June 2006

By © Muhammad Haque

The following is a key document as it reproduces the detailed length to which we went way back in February 2006 to make sure that some of the Crossrail hole Bill lies being told against the community and for CrossRail by ‘Tower Hamlets’ councillors were shown to those councillors for them to reconsider their utterances before they found themselves defending court actions brought by Khoodeelaar!. We did so in relation to a particular ‘satellite TV’ broadcast programme on 26 January 2006.
two councillors, one from the Lib Dems and one from the ‘Labour’ party, had taken part in that programme. We challenged them on their specific assertions as shown on that TV programme.

KHOODEELAAR!


The Brick Lane London E1 against Xrail hole demands to Cllrs

The KHOODEELAAR campaign in defence of the Brick Lane E1 area and against the Crossrail hole has created the hottest political debate in the East End of London and beyond. The result is that sitting councillors on Tower Hamlets are now running desperate to keep their careers. They are now under pressure to tell the truth on how they let the Crossrail hole to be brought to attack the community


© The Author /KHOODEELAAR / CBRUK /LAWMEDIA



KHOODEELAAR! THE BRICK LANE LONDON E1 AREA CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CROSSRAIL HOLE BILL has today put the following members of Tower Hamlets Council on notice that evidence in legal substantiation of claims they both made on a broadcast programme [26 January 2006] about their roles in opposing the Crossrail hole plan, would be demanded as part of the legal action in defence of the community that the KHOODEELAAR campaign has been preparing.


The councillors are


Cllr Akikur Rahman and

Cllr Helal Abbas




The extracts from the letter to them sent by KHOODEELAR on Saturday 4 February 2006 reads as follows,



“Dear Councillors Rahman and Abbas


You both made statements on a TV programme on a satellite TV Channel [‘Channel S’] which was broadcast on 26 January 2006 in which you both claimed, in your own ways, that both of you had supported the community’s opposition to the Crossrail hole plan/ scheme.


We have studied the contents of the rest of what you stated.


For now, we are putting this question to you both, and formally asking you to substantiate the assertions you made.


This is being put to you on legal advice.


Cllr Akikur Rahman said that he had been actively concerned about the need to let the community know for the past more than two years.


The question to Cllr Akikur Rahman on that assertion is this:


“Who did you speak to or write to or otherwise communicate with in the community ands on what date and with what result and with what evidence?


When you spoke at the meeting held at the Brady Centre on 22 January 2006, did you know that your statement would be subject to verification?


We are asking you on behalf of the KHOODEELAAR the brick lane London e1 area campaign against the CrossRail hole to give us the answers to all the elements of the question here and to do so by not later than 1000 hrs on Tuesday 7 February 2006.


You must know that the recorded evidence of the Liberal Democratic Party is FOR the Crossrail plan including the hole plan and there is no evidence whatever anywhere so far that the Liberal Democratic Party on Tower Hamlets Council has supported the community in the opposition to the Crossrail hole.


Your reference to consultation is a diversionary one and given that you made that statement on a date after 22 January 2006 shows that you are less concerned about telling the truth than making a Party political point.


If we have got this factually wrong, please point to us what facts we have got wrong and we shall amend this statement. If we don’t get the evidence from you then you alone will be held responsible fro among the misleading statement that you have made on the matter in the two statements that we have referred to about your utterances.


Cllr Helal Abbas:


You claimed that the “Opposition” on the Council was not about real policy or action. We note that just for context. You said that no Labour councillor was in favour of the hole.


We are challenging you on this on the facts.


Your entire record, as far as has been available on the public domain, is in conflict with your claim.


Your comments against the KHOODEELAAR campaigners, as reported in the EAST LONDON ADVERTISER on Thursday 28 October 2004, is also in conflict with your claim as made on Channel S as broadcast on 26 January 2006.


Do you agree or disagree?


If you agree then you must apologise to the community and withdraw the untruth ones of your statements from the two sets we have referred to here.



If you disagree then you must provide evidence in support of your continuing claim.


In either case, whatever you say will be included in evidence by KHOODEELAAR! in the matter in our application to court and in our submission to the UK House of Commons and the UK House of Lords in due course.



Your only opportunity to discharge your duty to tell the truth and nothing but the truth is now and until 1000 Hrs ON Tuesday 7 February 2006.



Yours faithfully




LAWMEDIA

THE legal AFFAIRS UNIT

Khoodeelaar!

The Brick lane London E1 Area campaign against the Crossrail hole Bill 2006- 2352 Hrs GMT

Saturday 4 February 2006

---

Crossrail cash fall out !

Lib Dems Ming Campbell should go farther than what he has said today on the BBC

Alex Salmond should detail Ken Livingstone’s dishonest record and expose Livingstone’s pandering to racism

Gordon Brown should confess to the truth of how much Scottish resources have been looted

---

The first thing to look for in the person in power before deciding if they are a dictator, a violator of fundamental human rights is any sign of their propensity to brazenness and then their ability to be brazen about something that no person in their right mind would ever be.

Tony Blair’s repeated return to British domestic neo-fascistic tactics confirms that he is a very authoritarian individual who is as insecure about his own position as every single one of history’s violator of human rights has been>
When Blair says he is unhappy with the Human Rights Act, he is saying that he does not recognize human rights. Which is not a step away from fascism. It is a state of fascism. It is Blair's state of fascistic mind.
And those that applaud him are showing their complicity with a neo-fascistic order to be imposed on society in Britain.
The BBC has become practically the in-house-propaganda toolkit for Blair or for a fast-tracking-right-winger like Gordon Brown.
Give them any excuse and the BBC will abuse and insult the politically disabled majority of licence fee payers by flaunting any number of pro-fascistic ‘documentary’ series. The primary and the only purpose being to undermine what little democracy there ever was in any of the last 30 years of engagements between the holders of power and any recognisable group in society.
The main thrust of the Julia Hartley-Brewer-fronted 'analysis of the Thatcher era' is tending towards that same objective. Notwithstanding the appearances of accommodation with 'democracy'.' contained in the anti-democratic narrative

And that there is a virtual state of fascism in Britain is not a hidden matter. It is openly admitted. In all mainstream forums of so-called freely expressed opinion fascistic tactics and policies are being promoted daily as if they were democratic.
As if they were the same as ‘civilisation as we know it’.
The propaganda that fascism needs is also on plentiful supply.
the rightwing of the British media is stuffed full of scare stories that keep pointing the finger of suspicion at the most weak, the moist vulnerable sections in the population in Britain.
Fascism of the Blair variety will routinely and frequently mount war-like assaults on members of those groups, so as to frighten the rest of the population into silence.
There is no disagreement with this from the rest of the state-approved ‘opinion formers' in Blaired state of Britain.
As there most certainly is none from the Cameron Conservatives.
In fact, David Cameron is so shamelessly amoral that he sees nothing wrong in advocating patently criminal ‘solutions’ as ‘answers to crime [spaces] .........make Britain a better society.
There is no practical way that the Human Rights Act can be scrapped.
Unless it is being claimed that the UK economy is so robust on its own and so self-sufficient that it can exist on its optimum level without trade and other economic links with the European Union and with the rest of the world.

Also, the recorded history of the ‘British military power’ is littered with evidence that without ‘allies’ of one description or another, that Army would have withered away under the sheer weight of the relevant ‘enemy’ at any given timer.
The Blair-Cameron lie about the ‘Human Rights Act’ being in any way responsible for any lowering of any criminal legal system standard is so pernicious and so brazen that that lie must have been agreed at a secret meeting where all of them attended and plotted to sabotage society in the next putsch which they will be all participating in.
[To be continued]

From the previous editions published on Sunday 25 June 2006

AADHIKARonline publishing programme on Sunday 25 June 2006

Blair’s crime in the inner cities – the evidence of Blairing criminalisation in Tower Hamlets – since when did Tony Blair become a fan of the ‘East London mosque’ ? [continued]

Is the ‘British press’ open to a review? How the papers lied today as well

Crossrail hole Bill Select Committee- how the ‘;East London Idiotiser’ got it wrong again

What the first ‘full Council’ meeting of Tower Hamlets Borough Council did NOT hear, did not see, did not get asked to do – first of the AADHIKARonline reports on the scandal that is the ‘elected’ Tower Hamlets Council

From the previous editions as published on Saturday 24 June 2006

”

Google search engine said at 2220 London time Sunday 25 June2006, the following:-
Your search - Pinter_Blair_gangster_did_not_match_any_documents.

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try fewer keywords.
Also, you can browse today'

”Your search: ‘Pinter Blair gangster’ did not match any documents.
So it is Google doing a China all over, isn’t it!
But then, that is only to be expected.
But that is never admitted.
Not in the Blaired inner cities.Every day, they are suppressing the facts on crime
They are suppressing the evidence of crime.
And by doing this they are encouraging crime
They are boosting crime
All key categories of serious crime.
If there was a moral ethical accountable culture of politics in the Britain that has been Blaired then there would have been a different practice, the main thrust and rend of which would have been to oppose crime.
As it is, Blair has screwed up the moral system so thoroughly that there is extreme difficulty in telling what is moral, let alone in identifying what level of morality and ethics anything is. Except of course if the tone and the texts of the alleged moral slogan is delivered via Blair for the Neo Cons and the many varieties of their zealots and social jingoist propagandists.
One thing is for sure – in the Blaired state, there is no morality based, ethics based opposition in ‘mainstream’ politics.
Not if the latest edition of the populist platform of where anything ‘moral’ is at, is anything to go by.
The BBC Question Time fronted by David Dimbleby, featured two proponents of what appeared to be the Lib Dems, the so-called ‘morality'-attaching corner of alleged opposition to the political status quo
Just how vacant that corner is of any identifiable moral fabric is illustrated by the fact that of all the panel-game-veterans of the UK variety, Germaine Greer, the woman who could in almost all other circumstances claim to be quite eloquent and articulate, lost the whole plot and found herself totally beached on the shore of a sea of political vacuity., She met that rhetorical fate as she vainly tried to propose that the Lib Dems were the real alternative !
In Tower Hamlets, the small local political landscape is littered with debris of so many hocus pocus immoral politician careeristic bids that the less said about individual [alleged] protagonists the better it is for all concerned. Apart from the fact that the alleged war on crime is as much a fakery contrived to by the alleged opposition members on the local Tower Hamlets Council as it is confected by the controlling clique which has close links with the local front people from the Metropolitan Police.
The criminals are not bothered by all these.
As they showed this past week outside two flats not far from the Oxford House, apparently a traditional place for social debates and democratic pretensions almost every week.
The locally grown, locally bred criminals did not think twice before arriving outside the Council [now ex-Council] controlled flats of two very fragile persons.
the criminals did their toilets there and they did their drug-taking there.
No sign of any anti-training patrol.
All these categories of ‘crime-fighters’ are forever on the watch and the citizens [oops! The subjects!] have nought a thing to worry about!
Tony Blair is responsible for creating this state of confidence on the part of the neighbourhood criminals that they do not bother to even pause before they arrive on other peoples’ doorsteps and use it as a toilet!
Look under the criminals’ cover and you shall indeed encounter a very easily recognisable ‘school aged’ juvenile or such who is enjoying ‘dedication’; to Tony Blair’s cult of Education ! Education ! Education !
In Tower Hamlets, this what has been allowed under the Tower Hamlets Council which has had Christine Gilbert as its chief executive
is that the right record on which Blair should have allowed Gilbert to be salvaged by her being promoted to become chief of OFSTED??? [This written and filed from London at 2200 Hrs GMT on Sunday 25 June2006]
[To be continued]

From the previous editions: Sunday 25 June2006

Is Harold Pinter right to call Tony Blair a gangster?

All of a sudden, Tony Blair has transformed society into a place of fear, hesitation and uncertainty.



Did you see his eyes as he declared in that really worrying style that society had changed as Blair spoke to camera and almost gloated as he uttered on abolishing whatever remained of freedom and liberty, on Friday 23 June 2006?



And was Harold Pinter accurate to call Blair a gangster, in the ‘Newsnight Review’ interview that was broadcast on the same day?



How come that the Guardian/Observer has not picked up on that interview. Nor has any of the other ‘liberal’ organs of ‘civilised opinion’ in Britain?


is it a given then that Tony Blair is a gangster or is the media silence on Pinter’s characterisation of the ‘gangster Blair’ further proof that the ‘mainstream’ media in Britain are openly complicit in the Blair plot to abolish society?

-More here soon

From the previous editions

The MUHAMMAD HAQUE political commentary

Exposing Tony Blair’s crimes in the UK inner cities

Part 5

All genuine observers and students of the violations by Blair of every known institution of ‘civilized’ ‘society’ has seen how completely at odds Blair is with the core values that made those institutions.
Blair’s latest attack on very single one of those values, as declared on Friday 23 June 2006 in his ridiculous-looking ‘presidential [USA]’ styled declarations, leaves no room for any doubt whatever that he is bent.
Bent on destroying the most precious of the principles for which literally millions of people laid down their lives.
In one sweeping phrase which cannot have been crafted for his utterance by anyone any more knowledgeable let alone caring about society and values than Blair himself, Blair disposed of centuries of pro-democratic traditions for civilizing battles and erased from his agenda even older institutions and humanitarian concepts

What he did therefore undermined far more than has been acknowledged by the ‘punditry’ displayed on the BBC TV Newsnight programme [Friday 23 June 2006] as fronted by Gavin Esler, not a renowned source of rigorously independent journalistic inquiries.






This written and filed from London at 1720 Hrs GMT Sunday 25 June2006[To be continued]

From the previous editions: The MUHAMMAD HAQUE political commentary exposing Tony Blair’s crimes in the UK inner cities –part 4 below

London Sunday 25 June2006


In the previous part of this commentary I have been writing today [Sunday 25 June2006] on Tony Blair’s crimes in the inner cities in the UK, I have said that “Blair’s main crime failure in the inner cities has been his attacks on real opponents of crime and criminality. This has taken place along side with Blair’s legitimisation of criminals and crime-causers and in his endorsement of the crooks in the bodies and the institutions of moral and ethical 'standards' that he has packed with his cronies and cheer-leaders who are widely known for what they are - career criminals who have found in him their biggest protector and shielder”.

Do the facts support my conclusion?

I look for the facts on the ground in Tower Hamlets. In the Brick Lane and Whitechapel London E1 area where I have been engaged for the past 30 months in the KHOODEELAAR! battle against Blair’s CrossRail assault on the community.


In the course of the KHOODEELAAR! campaign against CrossRail hole attacks on the East End, I have come across persistent incidents of Tower Hamlets Blaired local council performing acts of utter criminality against the local community.


Employees of the Council have been paid public money to do one thing and one thing only – lie to the people.

They have lied to the community at every single turn and they have lied for CrossRail.

Had these acts been subjected to a basic, ordinary standard of criminal prosecution tests, the vast majority of the Council-employed perpetrators would have been found guilty. Convicted of crimes.
Under each and very definition of crime, they have been committing offences. They have been deliberately lying. They have been lying to conceal the truth. They have been lying to hide the evidence from the community which they have chosen as the target for their CrossRail assault.


Time after time, we have come across incidents of Tower Hamlets Council-employees lying. Telling and writing and speaking lies.



It has got so out of hand that the Khoodeelaar! Campaign is now commencing actual legal actions against these employees.



But as the history of the English legal system is littered with systematic and whimsical obstructions against criminal legal remedies against officials in local councils and elsewhere, the more productive course has been chosen – civil actions.


How more productive?

Answer: The civil legal system is different over standard of proof and the scope of liability.


The facts put before the courts will be the same. The misconduct of employees. And the wrongdoings and negligence of the named councillors.


How far away is this from the notion of accountable democracy!



How far indeed!



This is an indication of just how very wide is the gulf in Blaired Britain between democracy and what the Blaired bands of time-serving councillors and council employees are getting up to in the matters that matter.



This gap is untenable

In any society that is supposedly a democratic one, in the sense that has been constantly peddled by Blair and his brigade of racist propagandists, the open the brazen abuses of Council powers and council resources by place men and place women doing the bidding for Blair’s gratification or career, must not be allowed.
For if it is then the alternatives will force themselves upon society.
Society will suffer further deficits. Society will suffer because those alternatives cannot be what the people necessarily ask for or need. As those alternatives will be undemocratic, by definition, their application and onsets will cause further losses of liberties, rights and services. In all sorts of ways.

People in Tower Hamlets are already without a democratic local Council.



And Tony Blair’s immorally honoured [!] ‘chief executive’ in that Council which has robbed the people of the East End of the last semblance of democracy, is being foisted on the country at OFSTED as if to say to the country - Blair shows Two fingers to any ethics and to anyone who dares argue for ethics and standards in society


[To be continued]

This [part of this commentary written and posted at 1644hrs GMT Sunday 25 June2006

Blair’s main crime failure in the inner cities has been his attacks on real opponents of crime and criminality . This has taken place along side with Blair’s legitimisation of criminals and crime-causers and in his endorsement of the crooks in the bodies and the institutions of moral and ethical 'standards' that he has packed with his cronies and cheer-leaders who are widely known for what they are - career criminals who have found in him their biggest protector and shielder

The Muhammad Haque daily world political commentary – Part 3 on Tony Blair’s criminal legacy in the UK inner cities

Just how openly parasitical the state in Blaired Britain has become can be seen in this weekend’s corrupt pulpit piece promoted by Rupert Murdoch’ Times portals attributed to that over-ambitious self-seeker and the propaganda launderer for Michael Portillo, Michael Gove, posing now as a Conservative MP
Gove peddles the routine inventions criminally falsifying confections about terrorism and has another go at the Muslims, using the psycho-warriors crafted dialect, language, vocabulary and imagery.
He appears to be writing about the Home Office [the UK Interior Ministry] getting it wrong, as far as their alleged choice of alleged advisers etc relating to Muslims is concerned. He makes the token attack reference on a man called Ibrahim Hewitt and links him with the George Galloway-established RESPECT party. That is it. He says nothing about who Ibrahim Hewitt gets his own agenda from or why this Ibrahim Hewitt was one of the very first to be given so many mainstream, BBC and other UK media platforms to spout out allegedly in the name of Muslims.
Gove really wants to add substance – but he finds none – to the myth of the Muslims equalling some sort of terror.
Had Gove been really concerned about telling the truth about crime including about terror, he would have addressed the issue of the Blair party corruption.
He would have then found that far from being against crime and terror Blair has been a key promoter of crime and a key advocate of terror

He would have then found that it is Blair, not George Galloway’s RESPECT or any such similar or comparable 'political' grouping or outfit, that has been the cause of crime in the UK.
And that crime and terror are not at all different. The only difference between crime and terror is in the degree of emphasis placed in their propagation, in the process of indoctrination that Gove is part of..
But, then, Gove cannot be expected to go into the real arena of telling anything remotely like the truth about real crime and real terror.
He is part and parcel of the very industry which thrives in real crime and real terror
Gove is by all the public evidence of his installation on the platforms of media fabrication and leis on the Blair state apparatus, a very shady and very ignorant individual.
The briefing he gets is of course of a different order
He would never be briefed to go into the manufacture of crime, the propaganda of crime in inner city schools. Let alone to even question the Blair promotion of one of the worst council town clerks of the past fifty years. That is why Gove would not be seen to be deriding Blair for appointing Christine Gilbert the OFSTED chief inspector. Nor would Gove be finding anything odd at all with Blair’s promotion of another Christine Gilbert-looking London rotten borough Council town clerks to another highly-promoted ‘education policy’ jobs in the UK – the former Lambeth council chief executive Heather de …..



From the previous editions

Blair crime failings in Tower Hamlets – why Christine Gilbert is not a right appointment for OFSTED
Part - 2

Blair’s promotion of Christine Gilbert in December 2005 took place in the shape of an honour that was a total insult and a dishonour to the community in the borough.
Christine Gilbert was given the honour at the end of a calendar year which had witnessed Christine Gilbert being frequently described as incompetent, wrongful and complicit in corruption on a massive scale over the voting fraud that has remained uninvestigated.
As the relevant ‘returning officer’ [the official responsible for the roper conduct of elections in a constituency] Christine Gilbert was correctly criticized by George Galloway, the candidate for Bethnal green and Bow whom Gilbert had to declare as having received the highest number of votes on 5 May 2005.




The corruption allegations were suppressed by the Blairing bureaucracy with considerable participation of the Greater London Assembly [GLA] and the propaganda facilities made available via the offices of the mayor of London, ken Livingstone.

,
.Because George Galloway has not got a political organization rooted in Tower Hamlets [and I AM very conscious of the apparently rooted ones that his party is being linked with on the 12-member 'RESPECT group of councillors' on Tower Hamlets COUNCIL] behind him, he has been having to make do with elements that are flitting in and out.
In the main
And his initially rightly announced intention to see Christine GILBERT role in the electoral fraud and misuse exposed, fizzled out because Galloway has not been able to call on the support of those in Tower Hamlets who could make the difference in that overdue democratic objective.

So what had started as an ethically and democratically desirable promise – the exposure of Christine Gilbert and the May 2005 vote fraud or misuse – ended with the Greater London Assembly effectively suppressing the investigation.
And once they had decided to do that, the so-called impendent political media in Britain generally and in the capital city of London ‘lost interest’. I say those two words within quotation marks because they never had any interest to begin with. Not in the way that they ought to have for the matter to gather the momentum that it should have done and could have done.
The only noticeable reporter on the matter was Andrew Gilligan.
But he is noted as the exception rather than the norm.
And the London EVENING STANDARD which gave Gillian the platform just before the elections [5 May 2005] did not show anything remotely like the professional interest in the alleged electoral abuses that it needed to do if it were to warrant credit as ‘the London evening paper’ of record!
That lack of interest by the ‘mainstream’ was linked with the business decisions of the proprietors. They just happens to also own the London daily mail group of media outlets.
Contrary to suggestions, the Daily mail is NOT against political sleaze and corruption in Britain. Which is why it has not made a real issue of the Christine Gilbert scandal.
[To be continued]

From the previous editions

Tower Hamlets schools are among the most notorious origins of anti-social behaviour. The ‘Tower Hamlets Local education Authority’ is one of the worst in all of England. And the next chief inspector of schools for England and Wales, is to be the same person who has been responsible for the ‘schools’ disaster in Tower Hamlets for the past few years. How is the person suitable to become head of OFSTED?

the Muhammad Haque daily world political commentary

0930 Hrs GMT London Sunday 25 June2006
Tony Blair’s latest shallow crime-stunt is already exposed as such.
But the depth of the problem that Blair has created and solidified in the nine years since he became UK Prime Minister is far more worrying and complex than the idiotic promotions given to him by the likes of his ‘mate’ Charlie Falconer would suggest.
Blair has created a moral morass in the British society.
And to understand this morass, it is very important to get a fewer firmamental facts about Blaired inner city right. I am making these observations and this analysis public here in the knowledge that no other writer or commentator has said what I am saying or is likely to independently say what I am saying. This is part of the evidence of how fickle the majority of the commentators on society are in Britain today. This is also greatly to do with the racist brainwashing of the main commentators careerists. To understand Blair’s criminal disaster, it is vital to understand one of the most criminalizing local councils in the UK today. This is called Tower Hamlets. And it is the chief executive of this same borough that Blair has foolishly or sleazily or immorally promoted to become the chief inspector of OFSTED, the quango that is in control of the ‘definitive word’ about what standard of performance in most schools and related educational institutions in England and Wales is and ought to be.
Blair’s appointment of Tower Hamlets ‘chief executive’ Christine Gilbert to become the OFSTED head raises so many questions about Blair’s own ability to make rational and fair judgments about vital matters that affect the lives of so many people. >br>I am introducing the key summarised facts of what has been going in Tower Hamlets.



Tower Hamlets is one of the worst ‘local education authorities’ in all of England. It has been so for ages.
At least since the Inner London Education Authority was abolished in 1990.
The first ‘political party’ that got hold of the resources that came with the local borough Council of Tower Hamlets becoming a ‘Local education Authority’ was what is now known as the Liberal Democrats
They made the typically inner city corrupt decision-making on the Tower Hamlets LEA
The local councillors in control – or in nominal control of the Education on behalf of the ‘majority’ group on Tower Hamlets Council, were beholden to the influences and the controlling corruption of the entire English educational establishment and bureaucracy.
That relationship of being exposed to the crooks that called the shots on what constituted morally and ‘educationally’ ‘professionally sound practice, was very much linked with the then Tower Hamlets Council’s lack of experience in political action. What they had experience of was in political corruption of their own variety. They thought that if their predecessors up to May 1986 as political majority on the Council had been themselves corrupt then the answer to that was for the incumbents in 1990 to be as corrupt as their alleged political rivals.
So the resources that came Tower Hamlets Council’s way – in the form of the Council becoming the Local Education Authority as well – resulting from the Thatcherite abolition of the Inner London education Authority became the object of a grand scheme of abuse, squandering and theft
[To be continued]

From the previous editions:

Khoodeelaar! Legal action programme – against Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander, London mayor Ken Livingstone, Tower Hamlets Council chief executive Christine Gilbert and four Tower Hamlets Councillors [amongst others] – the grounds summarised [Continuing the updates as published on Friday 23 January 2006]

Coming here on Sunday 25 June2006
THE MUHAMMAD HAQUE political commentary on the Blaired state of inner city London

Why Charlie Falconer is wrong to promote the criminal law lies that Tony Blair is so desperate to perpetuate

Is a tee-totalling ‘Charlie’ Kennedy a really proper and good alternative to Ming Campbell as a leader of Germaine Greer’s fantasy ‘ideal’ political party for Britain?

Why Crossrail-hole-plotting Tower Hamlets Council is not a model at all to be cited anywhere

Blair crime failings in Tower Hamlets – why Christine Gilbert is not a right appointment for OFSTED –

An in-depth examination of the ‘petitions’ to the Crossrail hole select committee

J K Galbraith - why the BBC must apologise for LSE-DEsair outrage

Editor in Chief
©MUHAMMAD HAQUE.
These pages are regularly updated and contents removed from here and archived after short displays.
Visitors are advised to bear this fact in mind.
To access AADHIKAR library and archives, please send your name and postal address and specify the date and subject [starting from 19 December 1980 to the present date] CLICK HERE to send an email request or to send an email directly from your own e-mail sender to aadhikarlibrary@yahoo.co.uk
To send a general e-mail to AADHIKARonline, CLICK HERE, or send an e-mail directly from your own e-mail sender by using our e-mail address aadhikaronline@yahho.co.uk
From the previous edition: Sunday 30 April 2006
AADHIKARonline PUBLISHING LAW note at 2120 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
Due to the Khoodeelaar! campaign taking legal action against the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democratic Group, the scheduled aadhikaronline feature about the Liberal Democratic councillor Louise Alexander and her blogs, has been postponed indefinitely.
That feature would have appeared here at 2350 Hrs GMT on Sunday 30 April 2006.
That publication will not now go ahead as the contents involved would include materials that are now being presented to the High Court in the action by Khoodeelaar! against Janet Ludlow and her Liberal Democratic Group on Tower Hamlets Council.
Aadhikaronline legal note: 2120 Hrs GMT
2220 Hrs UKtime
Sunday 30 April 2006

J K Galbraith - why the BBC must to apologise for that LSE-Desai outrage

MUHAMMAD HAQUE daily political commentary
London Monday 1 May 2006


The world has lost a great contributor to caring and civilised thought. J K Galbraith has passed away.

I will always remember him for the great service he performed by explaining to the world so clearly how the Military Industrial Complex operates.


But the BBC are not content to let the memories of one of the most active social thinkers remain untarnished.
they brought in one of the most embarrassing emblems of ethnicity-linked careerism, a man they described as ‘emeritus professor’, and addressed as ‘Lord Desai’.


He does not deserve the BBC’s promotion. Let alone complicity in the awful insult he heaped on the just-deceased thinker. Desai compared Galbraith with the British faker and convicted criminal Jeffrey Archer!

We the licence payers have something to say about the BBC’s choice of ‘work’ which they spend our money on.
>br>that work, that interview with the ignoramus Desai, constituted neither work, nor service.


Is there no end to the idiocies at the heart of the BBC?
Or, to be precise, at the heart of the Radio Four Today programme?


The Radio Four Today programme broadcast an alleged interview with one of the UK’s most corrupt and ignorant ‘professors’, linked with the London School of Economics [LSE], who exhibited once again just how pathetically backward and sewer-like the world of Big Business academia is.


In the alleged interview, the LSE-linked ignoramus Professor Desai displayed his own total ignorance of the discipline of economics and what is more he showed just how deeply sunk in the mire of selfishness, greed and corruption he himself was.


He dismissed JK Galbraith as an economist and then sang the praise of Market capitalism, globalisation in the most shameless way possible. He then said that he never liked Galbraith, anyway!


The licence payers of the UK must demand to know why our licence paying money is being wasted and misused by the BBC giving airtime to such completely bad elements who spread the gospel of capitalist uncare, discare where there should be much more space and time given to the propagation of the truth about our world and how the truly liberating ideas of educators must be at the centre of our knowledge about events.


The ignoramus Desai is not any description of source for anything remotely to do with the truth. He is a fabricator and the BBC should know better than to allow a practised fabricator and surrogate to be given any platform where only the truth about capitalism will be acceptable. No room for lies. For to allow any lies about economics to be aired as if it ahs any backing of scholarship would be to violate the rights of so many millions whose very existence is threatened and denied by the oppressive gospel of market economics and capitalism.


Galbraith’s contributions included the fact that he brought out into the open some of the crucial evidence about how the corrupt market capitalism – and Globalisation in today’s terminology- operates. In the society that is dominated by the worlds vilest violators of human rights.


If nothing else, that achievement by Galbraith was much more significant than the stupid LSE Desai has any ability to recognise.
The question is: what agenda was the BBC Radio Four editor or programme commissioners operating under?


Did they have to bring in that ignorance spreader Desai?



Why did they have to broadcast that sickeningly ignorant string of lies by the LSE moron Desai?



Since when had that punter become a source of anything to do with civilised discourse? Let alone of anything to do with the truth about this world and how the gospel of free market economic lies has been sued to violate and massacre millions?



How dare the BBC let the LSE moron Desai utter stupidities about J K Galbraith?



What does Desai know about Economics?



Ed Stourton should now be renamed Ed Stupidone for his own stupidities in conducting that unforgivably ignorant interview giving undeserved airtime to this LSE-linked peddler of corruption and Big Business perversion of the wealth of nature and the wealth of societies.



A transcript of the BBC Radio Four idiotic interview with LSE moron Desai going on at the just-deceased economist and social condemnatory J K Galbraith will be published here shortly




This filed 0815 Hrs GMT
Monday 1` May 2006



From the previous edition :
The 3rd Edition AADHIKARonline London 1330 Hrs GMT / 1430 Hrs Sunday 30 April 2006

Why Janet Ludlow the East London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council Lib Dem Group leader [opposition councillor] is being issued with court action notice by Khoodeelaar! this week and the relevance of the EVIDENCE from the past elections to Tower Hamlets Council – the worrying legacies of the Liberal Democrats 1990-1994 [Imminent, suspected, ‘change’ of ‘colour’ of political composition on inner London Councils will NOT bring about change for the better for the people! In these boroughs]
Full report here shortly [This filed 1330 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006]
From the pervious, the 2nd Edition:
Imminent, suspected, ‘change’ of ‘colour’ of political composition on inner London Councils will NOT bring about change for the better for the people! In these boroughs
How in Tower Hamlets, any consequence of an electoral fluke, resulting in Lib Dems getting any say on how the Council is run, will cause serious problems and lose the community vital support at a time when the East End needs a Council made up of honest people who are actually actively opposed to liars and lying in public office!
By Muhammad Haque
London 1100 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006

Yet they could bring changes for the better.
If they had good people standing as candidates.
More importantly, if they had good people standing with good prospects of getting elected/
There are all across London good people about.
May be not as many of them who are willing to stand under those circumstances as there should be but there are enough of them that could really make a difference if they were among the people on elected councils in London after the 4 May scheduled polls.
But the present political parties, groupings and the consequent system of elections do not want good people. running local councils in London
Tony Blair does not want them
None of Blair’s ministers wants them
And the Odiously Parasitic Department's Minister John Prescott would not definitely want them
So, come 5 May 2006 in the euphoria and mad rush for photocells, celebrations and the odd neo-fascistic grabbing of the headlines, there will be a great deal to mourn in London.
The loss of an opportunity to stop at least some of the crooks and thieves robbing the people of our rights.
Those thieves may be smaller in size and in terms of the individual access they would have to the vaults of our freedoms than their counterparts to be found in the inflated egos of the ministers included in Blair’s current entourage
. But looting – ‘voting’ ‘in cabinet’ and ‘in committee’ together, those crooks posing and ‘conducting’ as elected councillors will represent a very serious threat to liberties and the properties of the people in the communities covered by their councils.
Just as the crooks in control of the Tower Hamlets Council did during the five years of the INVITING of the CrossRail hole threat to the East End of London, 2000-2005.
Does it mean that the removal of that clique of crooks on 4 May 2006 by the voters, would usher in a morally clean group of councillors?
It does not.
How?
Because we have already seen the evidence of their immorality, their ingratitude to the community even before the last week before the scheduled polling day has run out
Some of them are already changing their gaits, the demeanours and their ways of addressing people in the community
They are behaving as if they are due for something like a coronation and the only thing that remains to be done is for the final finishing touches to be applied to the thrones!
Their heads are bigger than even Brenda could make her’s look on an especially good day based on her 60 plus years of experience of carrying the ‘right’ to sit in a real thrown.
In the Brick Lane London E1 area where the political heat surrounding the 4 May 2006 elections was actually launched at the end of December 2005 by the Khoodeelaar! 2006 election Manifesto, every single ‘legit’ party and candidate has had a pad.
This has been either in the form of a particular eating house – a Brick Lane Curry house- or a café or a similar, business location.
So vital is the place of Brick Lane in the political locations list. Locations to be seen at
Even the Isle of Dogs-bent property takeoverwallahs , the Conservatives, have been able to sneak into Brick Lane and pretend to be ‘friends’ with elements that have feigned enough abilities to give out ethnicity-linked noise that they [these Conservatives] have convinced themselves that they are on the way to taking over the democratic centre of the East End borough of Tower Hamlets.
If not in their own elected rights then by an actively encouraged alliance with the sub-Conservatives who are now expectantly moving nearer to the centre of a collation with the Conservatives to control Tower Hamlets
The Ies of Dogs estate-agents-Conservatives have no problem in dismissing the community in the Brick Lane London E1 area.
They know that they can do this by openly
[To be continued] From the pervious edition published at 0750 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006>/u>
The Muhammad Haque daily Political Commentary


Why I had described Prescott’s ODPM as the Department for the ODiously Parasitical Moron
By Muhammad Haque 0750 Hrs GMT 0850 Hrs UK time Sunday 30 April 2006

My battle against john Prescott centred on two factors.
His moral bankruptcy and his incredible stupidity about what the Labour Party was about
Those would take another 25 years to be recognised by the Mail on Sunday and by everybody else.
Everybody else that is occupying a place or similar in the mass propaganda, media business.
But the Mail on Sunday has already messed up any remnants of a moral message arising from the Prescott adulterous irresponsibility.
Prescott, like the conniving corrupting Charles Clarke, Prescott’s cabinet colleague and fellow travelling time-server in public office, has always been a bogus member of ‘the movement’.
He is petty, small-minded and has always lacked the basic depth that he must have had if he warranted being taken seriously as a true and trusted champion of the people whose lives literally depended on the deeds and or more likely the misdeeds of people like Prescott occupying positions of public authority and ‘power’ in the country.

I had asked him to explain one of the hundreds of contradictions in the then Labour regime in the UK.
It was about fiddling the official statistics and I asked him to explain why the official statistics on joblessness were being fiddled>
I assumed that he would direct his officials to address the details, as I knew that he lacked the necessary abilities to do that himself but I did know that even he knew the meaning and the implications for ‘democracy’ of the unacceptability, even in the context of the 1970s Britain, of fiddling the figures.
Prescott’s reply was staggeringly stupid.
And it missed the point
As always Prescott misses the main picture
That is why, more than 20 years since my previous attempt at getting him to tell the straight facts about Government behaviour I came across the fact that he was back in office and that his office had been given the shorthand name of ODPM. I immediately described his Department’s acronym ODPM as the ODiously Parasitical Moron’s Department [and permutations to similar effects]
The shocking truth about the UK political system [!!!] is NOT that there is no moral authority from the people in the country for the likes of Prescott to be in public office.
Th shocking truth is that the likes of Prescott are ALLOWED to get into public office.
And that they are even revered! Whilst holding those offices
The ‘revelations’ only leak out by default
The political system in Britain is a thoroughly corrupt immoral system
It is an opportunistic, insensitive,, uncaring, unethical system that will only be replaced by anything remotely resembling an ethical, moral one when the inevitable critical convergence occurs between all the crooked couriers of careeristic missions and manifestos
Even in the Mail on Sunday today [Sunday 30 April 2006]
there are paragraphs and paragraphs of plugs for the ‘wonderful boss’ that John Prescott alleged was.
And this is being attributed to Mac Clifford’s latest prize cash-machine –Tracey Temple, whom Clifford has been trailing for the past 48 hours to the media in advance of the splash in the Mail on Sunday.
That build up was typically corrupt and untruthful.
In the over-hyped Yet the fact that the are is a living devastating condemnation of the assumed democratic system.
How dare someone like Prescott – and the dozens of others who have been exposed as being dishonest, corrupt and immoral in office, although not exhaustively - is the although to those who are not ‘card-carrying’ members of the UK Labour Party, the likes of Charles Clarke, Tony Blair and John Prescott do what they do with the consent of the members of the Labour Party.
They don’t.
It is a myth to say that there is any democratic mechanism in the Party which I have re-named the Blaired party,
The Labour Party of the past which had certain organisational structures for some debate and for at least partially holding party officials and representatives to account has been killed off by the combined corruption epitomised and personified by Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock and the rest of their petty, small-minded time-serving pocket-enhancing small-time ‘political leaders’ that have hijacked the Party and have now consolidated their hold all over Britain.
That Labour Party will not come to life again.
Not in the foreseeable future.
If there is any revival of the Labour Party, it will take a very serious social upheaval before the Blaired sort of Party is consigned to the dustbin and modestly democratic Party is created in its place.
As things ordinarily stand today, there is no likelihood of any social upheaval occurring in the immediate future in Britain.
And therefore there is no likelihood of any fundamental change away from the Blaring away of society.
This Blairing way of Britain will of course logically run into grounds at one point.
That point is as yet not visible.
Not as I write
But things may change
Events may occur that will defy all assumptions underlying all these observations.

Which also includes and affects the roles and the relevance of other so-called mainstream Parties.

And for the same reasons and by the extension of the same logical and ethical analysis I can mark the renaming the Liberal Democratic Party as the Lib Dims. Party
I was beaten to the post on that by Andrea Perry, who has been in my view one of the rarest of British political journalists!
A witty intelligent and humorous woman with a very identifiable moral stance about the role of holders of public office

So I updated Andrea’s file as it were and renamed the Liberal Democrats the Liberal Dumbs Party
I illustrate this by a recent sample of the Lib Dumbness of Simon Hughes who made an appearance on BBC Weekend News and answered parrot-like questions being put to him by presenter Michelle Hussain [Saturday 29 April 2006] One of the first things he did say was that his party was not known for calling for people to resign!
That is so morally inept!
And so typically Liberally Dumbish!
[To be continued]
previous editions
:
Coming on aadhikaronline in the next 48 hours [ordinary working day times] exclusive reports including these:
From the previous editions:
Who will audit Christine Gilbert, chief executive of Tower Hamlets Council, given an undeserved CBE by Tony Blair in January 2006 and married to Home Office minister Tony McNulty? – a report shortly
From the previous edition:
Who is funding the ‘Independent’ candidates in Tower Hamlets and anywhere else in the UK for that matter

Who funds the ‘ethnicity-linked’ groups based at the ‘community centres’? Who are these groups and to whom are they accountable?

Who told the Council that we needed the packs of lies under covers of Local Area Partnerships? Who are these ‘partners’? Are there crimes being committed under the guises of LAPs? And if there are, why haven’t there been prosecutions?



Due here at 2350 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006



From the previous edition:
aadhikaronline reports and commentaries on Saturday 29 April 2006

With the BBC now acknowledging that the vote fraud and corruption regime is out of control in Tower Hamlets and with George Galloway’s long time business partner and RESPECT spokesman making a contribution to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme in the past ten minutes about Tower Hamlets Council vote fraud, the scene is set for massive abuse in the Borough even after the scheduled 4 May Council elections.

No matter who is in control, there is utter disbelief on the part of ordinary people in the Borough at the way the Council is descending into deeper depths of sleaze and corruption.
Bridget Prentice, the elections minister speaking now on the Today programme’s John Humphrys is making incredible utterances of protestations ..
She is not taking responsibility for the fraud that took place in Tower Hamlets last year over the 5 may 2005 general elections.
So the question aadhikaronline is asking throughout this 'May Day bank holiday weekend' is: Who will hold a post election Tower Hamlets Council to account?- an aadhikaronline report

Why is Oona King reportedly making such an open deal with the Lib Dems in Bow East? How deep do the roots of the deal go? Will Oona King ‘revive’ her own political career in Tower Hamlets via the blossoming career as a councillor of her as-yet-unnamed favourite candidate in the Bow East council seat?

Did they have to abuse the Friday congregation prayer-goers in the mosque in Tower Hamlets so brazenly with their ‘pray-for-the candidates’ routine on 28 April 2006, barely a week before the 4 May scheduled local elections? Would they have also prayed for a prosperous career for every single adulterer, liar, interest-taker, and alcohol-user?
Those latter categories often feature in the actual speeches and sharia discussions within the Muslim community.
So, whose idea is it to corrupt the sanctity of the mosque by openly turning the congregations into captive audiences for spiels for some of the most undesirable elements that are known in the community?
Or are we witnessing in the inner cities in Britain the Blair-regime’s encouragement of a sleazy version of the ‘political imam’ who is as corrupted as any characterisations of Abu Hamza has been found to have been justifiable on the facts? I-an aadhikaronline investigative report here shortly

From the previous edition of aadhikaronline published ion Friday 28 April2006
Who will speak for the RESPECT 'councillors' if they are in a position to become the focus of attention resulting from the 4 May 2006 elections in Tower Hamlets?
Will it be George Galloway’s business partner Ron McKay?
Or will there be a democratically constituted body that will answer to the people for the behaviour of Ron McKay?
What lies behind Ron McKay's assumption that he knows more about Tower Hamlets than the local people do?
And is his nervousness at being asked questions about the actual manifesto of the RESPECT 'party' anything to do with the fact that there is an atmosphere of really serious and fundamental problems within the RESPECT 'coalition'?-an aadhikaronline investigation [report due here in the very near future]
Who has sent the former Tower Hamlets Labour Party Local Government Committee into permanent exile?
Why won’t the chair and the secretary of the former Tower Hamlets labour Party Local Government Committee speak out against the sleaze the corruption, the illegalities, the careerism that they witnessed as they ‘observed’ the behaviour of the ‘leader’ of the ‘labour Group’ on Tower Hamlets Council during 2002-2005?
Why are there so much postal voting and other vote-related corruption and abuses in the East End borough of Tower Hamlets?
Why didn’t Christine Gilbert, the ‘returning officer’ in post in Tower Hamlets, resign after she was publicly described by George Galloway as being responsible for the disastrous electoral fraud that occurred during the 5 May 2005 [a year ago] general elections ?
Who decided that Christine Gilbert was a morally fit person to be given an Honour by Tony Blair?

Monitoring the morality show in the UK

who has been plugging away for Margaret Hodge, the peddler for the ‘BNP threat’ as described by Bethnal Green and Bow MP George Galloway? And why should the London DAILY MAIL suddenly discover that the BBC has been lying to the public? Will the Daily Mail continue to argue for accountability from the BBC after the 4 May 2006 council elections? And, by the way, why is the Daily Mail never found guilty of many wrongdoings by the Press Complaints Commission?
Why does PRIVATE EYE shield and protect all those unaccountable local Councils in the UK? And whatever happened to their 2003 ‘discovery’ of Tower Hamlets as one of the UK’s sleaziest, rottenest Borough Councils? Is the PRIVATE EYE suspension of any examination of the corruption that goes on in most local councils in any way linked with the fact that the ‘writers’ have personal links with so many involved directly or indirectly in the corruption institutions that are the bureaucracies in these Councils? And when was the last time that PRIVATE EYE did any investigation into the biggest spending publicly funded bodies in the UK? If the answer is NOT recently then the question surely must be: why not? ‘Shurely’ we should be told
Who pays for the printing and the districting of so many ‘Bangla language’ ‘whosepapers’ published from addresses in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets?
Who was behind the latest ‘Bengali TV’ channel attacks on the Bangladeshis ion the UK?
Due here at 2350 Hrs GMT Sunday 30 April 2006
The scheduled report “What makes Louise Alexander blog?” has now been postponed indefinitely due to aadhikaronline legal decision based on the Khoodeelaar! campaign against CrossRail hole court action programme due to begin against the Tower Hamlets Lib Dems Group of councillors on Tuesday 2 May 2006

Louise Alexander was reported as doing her own blogs, in a diary piece published in the East London Advertiser earlier this year.
Who is she?
She is ,oddly, a councillor on the embattled London Borough of Tower Hamlets Council.
So rare is it to find someone from that Council doing an ordinary-sounding blog that we assigned a team of students to find out how many others were doing similar blogs from Tower Hamlets.
Not one was found.
One that could compare with Louise Alexander as a blogger.
No other party produced a counterpart.
Louise’s own party, the opposition Liberal democrats, did not produce one either.
Our reporters were given almost unlimited access to aadhikaronline library which stores 25 years of local political information.
There is no other local councillor on Tower Hamlets Council with anything like the frequency of publication on a comparable medium in the pre-internet era.
So, what has Louise been upto as a Liberal democrat councillor who is a frequent blogger? We found that she is very consistent in her promotion of her party. Ever so slightly, though.
But you can’t mistake her blog for any other party’s.
So we asked many in her Weavers Ward: Can Louise defend her patch from the threat of George Galloway’s RESPECT?
Can she salvage the sinking reputation of the Lib Dems Group who are often accused of [or are 'seen as'] being politically neutralised and in bed with the clique in control of Tower Hamlets Council now?
Shujata Mandal reports here on SUNDAY 30 April 2006



The Blair Corruption of the inner cities in Britain Project – a special report here shortly

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1410 GMT Thursday 27 April 2006
Who are ‘the Muslims’, ‘the Bengalis’,’the Bangladeshis’,’ the Asians’,’ the Sylhettis’,’the Seelotees’ in Tower Hamlets? And how many ‘languages’ in fact are spoken in the East End of London?
Who are the ‘candidates’ that represent the people on the ground, regardless of what ethnicity, race and religion the people are?

AADHIKARonline reports start here at 1410 GMT Thursday 27 April 2006-04-27
Why does the East London Advertiser
get it wrong again in its print edition [and web site story about an election public meeting held at the Brady Centre in the Hanbury Street on Tuesday 25 April 2006 ? The ‘local paper’ says “Muslim sect attacks Bengali voters”, when the fact is that in Tower Hamlets, the word “Muslim” is almost synonymous with the word “Bangladeshi” [which is the word the paper should have used but has failed to use].
What lies behind this failure to refer accurately to any groups’ identity in context?
If there is any group that is to be referred to or identified by its home use of a language then the group is not even ‘Bangladesh’. It is Seelottee. That is the more accurate word. And the most communicative.
Why, then, does the local paper fail to recognise this reality?
After all. The Seelottee language has been spoken as a major language in the East End for the best part of the past 100 years.
It has not been Bengali.
? That is a different language.
And a very different story.

[To be continued]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the 1st edition AADHIKARonline Thursday 27 April 2006
exclusive khoodeelaaronline investigation into Tower Hamlets Council


Khoodeelaar! language of accountability dominates the Third Brady Centre humiliation of Michael Keith over “Crossrail hole collusion”!
an AADHIKARonline investigation
. To send a general e-mail to AADHIKARonline, CLICK HERE, or send an e-mail directly from your own e-mail sender by using our e-mail address aadhikaronline@yahoo.co.uk


. To make a direct communication on a mater of policy addressing the Editor and Publisher, CLICK HERE, or send an e-mail directly from your own e-mail sender by using our e-mail address aadhikareditor@yahoo.co.uk